Tailwinds for aging science over the next 40 years

Aging science is incredibly hard and complex. However, I believe we are poised for stunning breakthroughs in the next 40 years, driven by three tailwinds for aging science.

First, consider the aging population globally, which will bring increasingly intense pressure, interest and resources to find solutions. The UN predicts that the over-65 population will more than double from 2019 to 2050, to 1.3 billion people [1]. The UN also predicts the over-80 population will nearly triple from 2019 to 2050, to 426 million. Aging people will push for progress against age-related disease. They will vote for more funding. They will donate their money and effort to help. This is already happening. Witness the rapid growth of new aging science centers and labs, and startups working on longevity. It's not hard to imagine 10x the number of people working on aging science in 2030 vs. a few decades ago.

Second, consider how much foundational work has been done in the last few decades to understand aging at the molecular, cellular, tissue and organismal levels. 1000s upon 1000s of studies to understand the hallmarks of aging, the mechanisms of age-related diseases and the success of countless interventions. This base of knowledge means we can stand on the shoulders of giants. For example, in the last 30 years, we now understand what senescent cells are, how they impact aging and how to remove them (via senolytics). These could be FDA-approved medicines in the next decade. As another example, we identified that "parabiosis" (blood-sharing) rejuvenates old mice with young mice blood, and that the mechanism is likely clearing out molecular "noise" [2]. These benefits appear to come from plasma exchange that doesn't even require any "young blood". Once again, this could be an FDA-approved therapy in the next decade. 

Third, consider a few fundamental breakthroughs, including genomics, cellular reprogramming, CRISPR and artificial intelligence. These are general purpose technologies that are creating revolutions in biological research and beyond. The progress in single-cell genomics is leading to exponential growth in data and insights into our cells. The ability to reprogram cells, originally via "Yamanaka Factors," is leading to a flurry of new research and heavily funded startups. For example, we can now program astrocytes into functional dopamine neurons, and even reverse a model of mouse Parkinson's [3]. CRISPR drastically simplifies gene editing, which is a boon for research and for new treatments. The progress in deep learning even in the last 5 years is night and day. These breakthroughs are being used together, and are building on each other. Labs and startups are using genomics, reprogramming and AI together to do things that would have been impossible 5 years ago.

Together, these tailwinds set the table for what I believe will be astounding progress in aging science in the next 40 years.

For example, let's do a quick thought experiment: imagine that going forward, we find just one new thing that extends lifespan/healthspan by 10 years in each decade. In four decades, your life expectancy could be 40 years longer than you thought.


[1] United Nations Department of Economic Social Affairs. World population prospects 2019: highlights. New York: United Nations Department of Economic Social Affairs; 2019.

[2] Kim, D., Kiprov, D.D., Luellen, C. et al. Old plasma dilution reduces human biological age: a clinical study. GeroScience (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11357-022-00645-w

[3] Qian, H., Kang, X., Hu, J. et al. Reversing a model of Parkinson’s disease with in situ converted nigral neurons. Nature 582, 550–556 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2388-4

What are age-related diseases?

If we want to make progress against aging and age-related disease, we should define what these are.

There is considerable debate around defining aging. A 2018 review paper notes, "Nowadays one of the most crucial questions of the biological aging research is to determine what is aging per se" [1].

One way to define aging is lifespan and death rates by age. One main reason aging can be terrible is that your risk of death grows exponentially.

This figure, based on mortality data of Japanese women, shows that your likelihood of death increases exponentially with age [2]. Thus, one way to define aging is lifespan and death rates by age. Progress would mean increased lifespan and decreased death rates by age.

But what are the diseases associated with death? We can look at CDC-reported causes of death.

This table shows the top 15 CDC-reported causes of death in 2019 [3]. Most of these are related to age (heart disease, cancer, Alzheimer's, diabetes, etc), but also have major lifestyle components (e.g. diet, exercise, smoking). Progress would be mitigating these diseases.

What are the causes of these diseases? There are "hallmarks of aging" that attempt to provide molecular/cellular of the aging diseases we experience [4]. These include "genomic instability, telomere attrition, epigenetic alterations, loss of proteostasis, deregulated nutrient sensing, mitochondrial dysfunction, cellular senescence, stem cell exhaustion, and altered intercellular communication." Progress would be keeping the hallmarks of aging in more youthful states.

Where should researchers focus? Increasing overall lifespan? Addressing age-related causes of death? Working on hallmarks of aging? Any single disease or aging hallmarks are enough to make a long scientific career. For example, Judy Campisi has made critical progress in understanding cellular senescence (one of the nine listed hallmarks of aging) over a multi-decade career.

My approach is first, to maintain a north star of the impact I want to have, which is increasing average healthy lifespan for humanity. Next, I am trying to be open and interdisciplinary. I try to read widely across hallmarks of aging, biochemistry, aging disease, etc. I will certainly end up focusing somewhere (I am surrounded by world-class neuroscientists at UCSF...). But I don't need to do that yet.



References

[1] Vijg, Campisi and Lithgow. Molecular and Cellular Biology of Aging. The Gerontological Society of America. 2015. ISBN 978-0-929596-04-4

[2] "Deaths: Final Data for 2019." Center for Disease Control (CDC). National Vital
Statistics Reports, Volume 70, Number 8. July, 2021. Retrieved online at https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr70/nvsr70-08-508.pdf.

[3] Lopez-Otin, et al. The Hallmarks of Aging. Cell, Volume 153, Issue 6, 6 June 2013, Pages 1194-1217. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2013.05.039

[4] Fulop, et al. The integration of inflammaging in age-related diseases. Seminars in Immunology, Volume 40, December 2018, Pages 17-35. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smim.2018.09.003

The case against and for extending lifespan

The idea of extending lifespan is a controversial topic. Some believe it is unnatural. Others question if living longer while sick and unhealthy is worth it. Some wonder if the world can sustain more people. These are all important questions. Below I summarize the cases I've heard against and for this research. Then, I'll share my perspective (which you may be able to guess).


The case against research to extend human longevity

  1. Isn’t this unnatural?

  2. Is it worth living longer if you’re just sick and unhealthy? I don’t want to be like grandparents at the end of their life.

  3. Can the world sustain more people? Are we already beyond the world’s carrying capacity?

  4. Will evil dictators remain in power for too long?

  5. Will society become stifled if the old don’t make room for the young?

  6. What if I get bored of my life? Of my significant other?

  7. Will only a select few be able to afford the longevity treatments?

  8. Is it even possible? Human aging is incredibly complex. 


The case for research to extend human longevity

  1. Keep family and friends healthy and alive!

  2. Aging and age-related disease is the leading killer globally.

  3. We are already on board with curing age-related diseases like cancer, dementia and frailty, which are extensions of aging.

  4. We have already more than doubled lifespan in the last 100 years.

  5. We lose so much wisdom, experience and human connection when people die.

  6. Longevity interventions in model organisms and humans show increased healthspan as well as increased lifespan.

  7. The healthcare savings would be enormous, given most money is spent in the last 6 months of life.

  8. If someone doesn’t love life, they don’t have to take the longevity treatments.

  9. Healthcare innovations typically get shared broadly over time. For example, global average life expectancy is around 70 years, including lower-income countries, vs. 75 years in the United States.


My perspective: I want my family and friends to stay healthy and alive for as long as possible. I love life and I want to keep living. I believe in technology development and global progress over the last 150 years has been on average very good for humanity in both rich and lower-income countries. I believe this will continue if we keep making amazing technologies and innovations like lifespan extension.